So great!
Lydia, our approach in the digitization program will be really
benefited with this.
here are more examples:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uploaded_via_Campaign:AAL
(all the books in this category have a complete description, some of
them in wikidata also)
And from other donation we have:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil
e:Playa_de_Scheveningen_-_Adriaen_van_de_Velde.jpg (work in progress
to have the 800 images like that one)
Thanks :)
El jue, 28-07-2016 a las 20:13 +0200, Lydia Pintscher escribió:
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Brill Lyle
<wp.brilllyle(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > This is a great development. Not sure
if this is helpful to discuss
here or
> > > if it is preferrable on the Structured
data page? Please advise and
I will
> copy info there.
>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Structured_data
>
> > > In May 2015, Wikimedia NYC supported an editathon with the
Guggenheim here
> > > in NYC where the Guggenheim donated 100
images to Wikimedia Commons
as part
y_2015#Gallery
>
> > > Pharos added some really great metadata to these image pages, which
might be
> > > helpful as a guide for what might be
the most deluxe type of
Commons page
> info breakout -- at least it seems pretty deluxe
that to me. :-)
> > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GUGG_Dynamism_of_a_Speeding
_Horse_%2B_Houses.jpg
Thanks. Stuff like that is useful to have as examples.
> > > As far as discoverability goes, I think that the use of categories
on
> > > Commons is mission critical. I see this
requested feature is noted
on this
> > > project page. Personally, I don't
love the flatness of the category
system
> > > on Commons (or Wikipedia actually)
because it's not especially
faceted, but
> > > I think that this "legacy"
issue should be very clearly integrated
as this
> > > project develops.There are so many
images available on Commons but
finding
> > > them is a problem. The file name is
often not descriptive enough,
and the
> > > metadata might be incomplete or poor.
So integration with Wikidata
is key,
> > > but again, discoverability is even more
important. Otherwise it's
just
> unlabeled jars on the wall.
>
> > > And to be a total pain, have existing library resources, like the
A&A
> > > Thesaurus from the Getty, been
consulted to provide controlled
vocabularies
> and possible copy catalog potential?
> Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus:
>
http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/aat/
> example:
http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300021368
>
> I'm not a working librarian but I think there are multiple semantic
> > > resources for artwork, especially. I remember this one from grad
school....
We will be using Wikidata's vocabulary (items and properties) as that
has a lot of advantages here. However a lot of that is already
connected to A&A Thesaurus and others. So we're pretty flexible there
for different usecases.
Cheers
Lydia
--
Mauricio Vidal Genta
Coordinador del proyecto de digitalización
A. C. Wikimedia Argentina
